Explanation Please, II

Originally posted by LemonJello
I guess my point is, it would be better if you just chalked it up to some divine mystery of some sort. It's just painfully obvious that the DoS walks and talks like complete nonsense; at least be honest about it.[/b]

When it comes to God, if there be a God, then there must be some mystery, right?. 😉

As for myself, reading the scriptures it is undeniable what the text is trying to convey. It begins in the OT as we see animal sacrifice for the atonement of sins.

The high priest would bring blood into the tabarnacle of God and offer up the blood of the sacrificed animal to the seat of the ark of the covenant, or mercy seat. It went something like this, the victims for the Day of Atonement were a bullock and 2 young goats for sin-offerings, and 2 rams for burnt offerings. All of these animals had to be without any blemishes. Only one goat, chosen by lot, was slain, the other served as the "scap-goat" and could not be used for future sacrificial offerings. The animals that were sacrificed were taken out of the camp and cast in a heap and torched and looked upon as accursed. None of the remains were to be touched again or consumed. This heap of burned up flesh was representative of the penalty for sin.

Conversly, Christ was chosen by lot to die over that of a man named Barabbas as the scap goat. According to the scripture, it was custom for the Roman governor, who was then Pontius Pilate, to ask the people who they would like to see released right before passover. They chose Barabbas over Christ. Only Christ was without blemish, hence he could only be the appropriate sacrifice. Interestingly, the name Barabbas is actually "Jesus bar Abbas", or son of the father. All we know about Barabbas is that he was some kind of a criminal against the state, more than likely a zealot caught trying to undermind the Roman authorities. Both were seen as "rebel" leaders, but only one, Barabbas, was a true law breaker. The two names are a play on words, that is undeniable, and I'm not quiet sure what the significance here is. Anyhew, Christ was then taken outside the gates of Jerusalem to be sacrificed, much like the animals taken out of the camp of the Israelites to be tossed aside as accursed.

There is more symbolism in the text in terms of the sacrificial nature of Christ for us all. As Chrsit was on his way to the cross he stops and cannot carry his cross. A man named Simon Cyrene was said to be "chosen" to take up the cross up the hill to the site of the crucifixian. All that was aaked of the man was for him to carry the cross and then be released so that Christ would hang and die on that same cross. In Matthew 16:24, Christ told his followers that they must take up their cross and follow after him before he was ever crucified. The correlation is clear, all that we are asked to do is take up the burden of following after Christ and the associated burdens that will be sure to follow, and in the end we escape the condemnation as he is nailed to the cross in our stead.

In Hebrews it is a little more elaborate in terms of its interpretation of the role of Christ in the sacrifice. Christ is said to not only be the source of the sacrificial blood before God to atone for our sins, he is also said to be the high preist himself who stands in the gap between God and man. For you see, it was the high priest who had to prepare himself to go before God and be an advocate for the people to God in the Old Testament, which is how Christ is conveyed in scripture.

Other tid bits that I have picked up on is that blood is seen as the "life source" of all living things. In scripture, that same life source was offered in place of the death that came due to sin. I suppose it would be akin to throwing bleach over something dirty. All of the Abrahamic religions subscribe to the notion that animal sacrifices went on in the Old Testament for the offering of sin, but only Christianity has continued with this theology via the sacrifice of Christ. As for the reasons why Judism and Islam abandon these theologic notions, I am not the person to ask.

Something interesting of note, however, the sacrifices made in the Old Testament were not to be consumed in any way, however, Christ gives us the symbolism of communion to partake of his body and blood. I will let you theology gurus come up with a reason as to why.

Outside of that, I got noth'in!! 😛

Originally posted by vistesd
Once again, your refusal to see sin as something standing in need of healing (soterias)—rather than in need of condemnation by a (necessarily?) intolerant god—renders your view a pseudo-soteriology that, unfortunately, seems to have infected much of Western Christendom, especially latter-day Protestantism. [It's possible that I mis-read you here; and, if so, I will haply stand corrected.]

I don't think this is a notion mutually exclusive to Western thinking. For example, from my obeservations, all societies have some sort of judicial system to levy justice. Of course, the dilemma is always, are they fit to be judged? Are they crazy or evil? In fact, where do you draw the line? Is evil simply the result of a mind gone mad? Also, what do you do with these people? Are they in need of group therapy or a good lashing?

I would say that I'm not convinced there is a blanket answer. It all depends on the details I suppose.

Originally posted by whodey
Are they in need of group therapy or a good lashing?

It is my opinion that a good lashing, must serve a purpose. It does not automatically follow that payment for a crime is a good lashing. Too many people seem to loose sight of this and assume that such payment is required and obviously so.
Punishment only ever makes sense if there is some future benefit to it. It does not make sense if:
1. It is a final outcome as some theists concepts of 'the final judgement' or 'hell' seem to suggest.
2. Someone else takes the punishment (though this does work in some circumstances, but not all - there must be an explanation for how it is effective).

Originally posted by jaywill

No need to bother: the idea that we "need" blood sacrifice of innocents for anything is just all a bit absurd -- the doctrine of the scapegoat.

In my opinion, the emphasis on [b]the blood of Jesus is an emphasis on the truth that this man who gave up His life was God.

Without chapter and verse, there was a repeated reminder ...[text shortened]... to the LAW of God. Christ redeemed man out from under the penalty of the LAW of God.[/b]

Sam Harris pretty much sums it up (from Letter to a Christian Nation):

Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice.
(...)
It is essential to realize that such obscene misuses of human life have always been explicitly religious. They are the product of what people think they know about invisible gods and goddesses, and of what they manifestly do not know about biology, meteorology, medicine, physics, and a dozen other specific sciences. And it is astride this contemptible history of religious atrocity and scientific ignorance that Christianity now stands as an absurdly unselfconscious apotheosis. The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a "loving" God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history.
(...)
Christianity is more or less synonymous with the proposition that the cruxifiction of Jesus represents a final, sufficient offering of blood to a God who absolutely requires it. Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others.
Let the good news go forth: we live in a cosmos, the vastness of which we can scarcely even indicate in our thoughts, on a planet teeming with creatures we have only begun to understand, but the whole project was actually brought to a glorious fulfillment over twenty centuries ago, after one species of primate (our own) climbed down out of the trees, invented agriculture and iron tools, glimpsed (as through a glass, darkly) the possibility of keeping its excrement out of its food, and then singled out one among its number to be viciously flogged and nailed to a cross.
(...)
Suffice it to say...that a worldview in which "propitiatory sacrifices on behalf of the living and the dead" figure prominently is rather difficult to defend in the year [2011]. But this has not stopped otherwise intelligent and well-intentioned people from defending it.

Originally posted by whodey
When it comes to God, if there be a God, then there must be some mystery, right?. 😉

As for myself, reading the scriptures it is undeniable what the text is trying to convey. It begins in the OT as we see animal sacrifice for the atonement of sins.

The high priest would bring blood into the tabarnacle of God and offer up the blood of the sacrificed an ...[text shortened]... ology gurus come up with a reason as to why.

Outside of that, I got noth'in!! 😛

See post above.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sam Harris pretty much sums it up (from Letter to a Christian Nation):

Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice.
(...)
It is essential to realize that such obscene misuses of human life have always been explicitly religious. They are the product of what people think they know about invisible gods and goddesses, and of what his has not stopped otherwise intelligent and well-intentioned people from defending it.

Sam Harris:

It is essential to realize that such obscene misuses of human life have always been explicitly religious.

Christ's resurrection vindicates any assumed "misuses of human life" Mr. Harris thinks he detects in the crucifixion of Christ.

I would much rather take the word of Jesus concerning His own attitude towards His death. Nothing suggest He regarded it as frivolous. You can either take Sam Harris's opinion or the explanation given by Christ Himself. I choose the latter.

They are the product of what people think they know about invisible gods

Maybe Harrris thinks that the ultimate reality of God is something we should smell or see or otherwise get with our five physical senses.

He may take comfort in lumping together in a huge strawman argument all the "gods" and "godesses". There is nothing in history like the life of Jesus. Harris thinks he can ignore that by dismissing Christ as another superstition.

You may be fooled by this generalization. Fortunately many of us are not.

and goddesses, and of what they manifestly do not know about biology, meteorology, medicine, physics, and a dozen other specific sciences.

Here is the sheer arrogance of the New Atheists. They assume that no one with faith in God could possibly know anything about these sciences.

I personally know many engineers, doctors, physicists and science degreed people who also touch the reality of God with their regenerated human spirit, not with the five senses. While living in Boston Mass. for ten years I felloshipped with a number of students from Mass. Institute of Technology - MIT.

They would probably chuckle and shake their heads to be informed by Sam Harrus that they could not possibly know anything about the sciences.

The tactic of the New Atheists to paint faith in Christ as unscientific is one of he biggest farces by modern anti-God bigotry. I'd be a fool to buy into that - IE. "No one with faith in God could know anything about science".

And it is astride this contemptible history of religious atrocity and scientific ignorance that Christianity now stands as an absurdly unselfconscious apotheosis.

Religious atrocity does not prove the non-existence of God. If that were so then the persecution of Christ by the Pharisees, chief priests, scribes, and religious scholars of His day would prove the non-existence of God.

With as much prejudice I could argue that the Nazi experiments on humans proves the worthlessness of the scientific method.

Harris goes a long way with a lot of sophisticated phrases to dress up his self righteousness. Essentially, he is rationalizing that he is OK and needs no reconciliation to God. He is offended by the message of the need for salvation.

Like Captain Ahab of Moby Dick, he is on a quest to avenge himself for the "biting off of his leg" (his ego). He will persue the white whale Christian faith to the death because of some perceived mortal wound to his self righteous ego.

Like Captian Ahab he nearly thinks he is on a mission of truth. The Analogy is not perfect because God is not a dumb animal. But the sense of offense Harris takes is detected behind the tissue of rationals. His self rightoues ego cannot stand the thought of him needing reconcilation to God.

He's modern and scientifically informed. All who believe in God are not.
This is the arrogance of the New Atheists.

The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a "loving" God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history.

Wrong again. He may have it the other way around.

The first sacrifice was performed by ancient man in Genesis at the revelation of God - Cain and Abel.

The idea spread through many cultures and was embellished and modified to meed various more local needs. When God brought Israel into Canaan it was clear that He held human sacrifice of the Canaanites as a sinful abomination.

Here is a portion of God's instructions to the Israelites as they enter into Canaan:

"Be careful that you are not ensnared in following them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not seek after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods, so that I also may do likewise ?

You shall not do so for Jehovah your God, for every abomination to Jehovah which He hates, they have done to their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burned with fire to their gods." (Deut. 12:30,31)

There is only one all-inclusive offering of the Son of God of Himself -"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.". At His request the justice of a righteous God against sin He absorbed that we might be justified by faith in Him.

Sam Harris is taking the divinely hated perversions of many world cultures and saying "See? The death of Jesus is the same thing."

I believe God did instruct kill an animal and cloth Adam and Eve with its coat as a symbol of the coming redemption in the Son of God. I believe that Cain and Abel were instructed by their parents about offering of an animal's life for their reconciliation to God. This was a foreshadow, a symbol - God teaching what He would one day do in the Son.

The Canaanites and others perverted the early divinely instructed act into human sacrifice, burning their sons and daughters in the fire to Molech and to demon gods.

The Hebrews were not to imitate this human sacrifice or preserve the idols of the hated practices:

"The idols of their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not desire the silver or gold upon them, nor take it for yourwself, lest you be ensnared by it; for it is an abomination to Jehovah your God." (Deut. 7:25)

God hated the human sacrifices. But through animal sacrifice, in a symbol, those Jews who participated in their offering, looked forward in faith to the one and last offering of the Son of God for the sins of the world.

And this concept was not only predicted. But it was taught clearly out of the mouth of Jesus Himself as He understood that His death and resurrection were a propitiation for the sins of many:

"And as they were eatug, Hesus took bread and blessed it, and He broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat; this is My body. And He took a cup and gave thanks and He gave it to them, saying, Drink of it all of you, For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgivenesss of sins." (Matt. 26:26-28)


1.) God told early man about animal offering.

2.) Self righteous Cain invented the first human religion. He offered what he thought he could produce to justified before God. And his offering being rejected he became the first murderer, in a fit of jealous rage against the received Abel.

3.) The cultures afterward, nonetheless, perverted this incident into human sacrifices. These were practiced by the Canaanites to their idols and to demons. God hated these human sacrifices.

4.) Because Christ had not come yet, those Jews who participated in the offerings looked forward in faith to Christ in the future, probably without knowing so. God counted their obedience to draw close to Him with the propitiatory offering the pre-cursor faith which would justify them unto eternal life.

5.) There is only ONE all-inclusive offering which is that of Christ offering Himself. The judgment of sin fell upon Him from God. Sin must be judged. And the forgiven sinner is not a sinner whose debt still remains. He is a forgiven person whose debt has been paid.

God set this up by His power and authority. He will forgive. But He will forgive in a way which upholds His righteous procedure, His majesty, and domonstrate that sin must be judged. To our side it seems like free forgiveness. To God there is no such thing as free forgiveness.

This is all only the judicial side of redemption. This forgiveness is secured so that God may dispense His life and nature as the Holy Spirit INTO man's being. Yes, that is invisible. But its operation eventually conforms and transforms men and women to be like Christ.

(...)
Christianity is more or less synonymous with the proposition that the cruxifiction of Jesus represents a final, sufficient offering of blood to a God who absolutely requires it. [.quote]

That may be true. But that is not the entire Christian gospel. The gospel include God dispensing Himself into man to make man a duplicate of His glorious Son in "mass production" for a collective and corporate expression of God and man united.

And the death and resurrection of Christ was foreodained before the creation of the universe. It is a final act for sure. But it was ordained before the existence of the universe.

Ask Mr. Harris about the meaning of the existence of man and you will probably get a depressing and empty fog of rationals about accidents.

God became man so that man might become God, in life and in nature, but not in His unique Godhead. God created man that the invisible eternal divine Being might be manifested visibly within man.

Harris and other New Atheists usually have no clue about why people are in the universe. Often they will reply "Why does there have to be a meaning anyway?"

That a convenient reply to the man who is in the dark so long that he's afraid of the light.


[quote]
Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others.

Most of the Gospel message I see, especially in the Gospel of Joh...

Cont.

Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others.

Most of the Gospel message I see, especially in the Gospel of John, is a command to believe.

Love comes from having been forgiven. But for the most part what I see in John is not a command to love first. It is a command to believe. If we believe whether God likes or or does not like us He is obligated by His own righteousness to receive us.

This is the power of the assurance of the Gospel. God is bound by His own procedure. If we believe into Christ He must receive us into His eternal purpose. He has not overlooked our sins. Neither has He said, "Let's just forget about them."

In Christ God has JUDGED our sins. If you were to remind Him of your sins after you received Christ He would say that He does not remember. The debt is PAID in full. "Their sins and their unrighteousnesses I will by no mean remember any more."

This lays the righteous groundwork for God to begin to organically dispense His life and nature into man to conform man to the image of His Son.

"Becausee those whom he foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers.

And those whom He predestinated, these He also called; and those whom he called, these he also justified; and those whom He justified, these He also glorified." (Rom. 8:29,30)

The goal then of God's redemption is glorification. That is that God became a man so that man might become God in life and nature, in expression, in glory that Jesus would be the FIRST born among many BROTHERS - the mingling of God and man for His expression and man's eternal enjoyment.

The Only Begotten Son is to be the FIRSTBORN Son among many brothers for a corporate expression of the mingling of divinity and humanity. Why should I not love God for so great a salvation?

It a joke to be swayed by petty little arrogant men like Sam Harris. He thinks a little science knowledge makes God and God's eternal purpose unnecessary. The little bit of stuff Harris proudly knows about modern science is just a drop in the ocean of God's vast creation. God is WAY ahead of Sam Harris. And the sheer petty arrogance of thinking technology has replaced the Almighty is silly pride.

The little bit of stuff we know about God's vast creation is only a whisper of His power. He has vast mysteries waiting yet to be discovered. All the accumulated scientific knowledge that Sam Harris inherited is but a tiny whisper of God's creative intelligence and power.

Puny little arrogant New Atheist Sam Harris. You go ahead and be hoodwinked by him if you want to. Not me.

Nine parts - Sam Harris and William Lane Craig debate.

YouTube

Originally posted by LemonJello
See post above.

You are focusing soley on the death of Christ. However, what of the life of Christ? His life was a life of service. He humbled himself, even to death, to serve those he loved. The scripture says that he was a man of sorrows and that no man esteemed him to be worth much at all. In short, the death of Christ and how he died means nothing without the former life that defined that death.

Like it or not, your lifes work could not be called "seving" mankind without some form of "pain". Service implies that you are acting in a way you would otherwise not be if you were simply doing as you please. In addition, God makes it plan throughout scripture that we are to serve our fellow mankind. This can be seen time and again via illustrations of the "good" shepherd such as David.

Also, it is also painfully clear that God forbids human sacrifice, unless it involves himself. To ignore thiese facts I think is faulty.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is my opinion that a good lashing, must serve a purpose. It does not automatically follow that payment for a crime is a good lashing. Too many people seem to loose sight of this and assume that such payment is required and obviously so.
Punishment only ever makes sense if there is some future benefit to it. It does not make sense if:
1. It is a fina in some circumstances, but not all - there must be an explanation for how it is effective).

So in a way, you look upon punishment as a type of therapy. I think it can be.

Of course, you assume that a therapy exists out there that can cure any ailment or problem. As we see in this life, that is not necessarily the case as sad as it may be.

As for #2, Christ did take the punishment for all. The only question is, does everyone evade such punishment at some point? Theologically, this is somewhat controversial, although, I tend to favor saying, not so much. If the will of those involved runs contrary to God, then there must be seperation. Seperation from the source of all life and love I think is a form of punishment. However, to force that individual to comply could also be seen as a form of eternal punishment, so who is to decide which is worse? Of course, we assume that the nature of God forces him to allow free will. If so, then it is a no brainer.

Originally posted by whodey
So in a way, you look upon punishment as a type of therapy. I think it can be.

No. There are various purposes of punishment including:
1. As a deterrent to others.
2. As a deterrent to repeat behaviour.
3. As a prevention measure (incarceration or permanent marking such as chopping off something).

Of course, you assume that a therapy exists out there that can cure any ailment or problem.
I make no such assumptions. I merely ask what purpose punishment serves if not for the reasons I listed.

As for #2, Christ did take the punishment for all.
And I merely wish to know what purpose this punishment served. It makes no sense to me.

The only question is, does everyone evade such punishment at some point?
No, the question is whether they were due punishment in the first place, and if so, why.

Seperation from the source of all life and love I think is a form of punishment.
Suffering, yes. Punishment? Why?

However, to force that individual to comply could also be seen as a form of eternal punishment, so who is to decide which is worse?
Ha ha. Why do theists tell us how terrible separation from God is and how infinitely more desirable heaven is, then turn around and suggest that a well informed person would choose separation. You are not making any sense.

Originally posted by whodey
You are focusing soley on the death of Christ. However, what of the life of Christ? His life was a life of service. He humbled himself, even to death, to serve those he loved. The scripture says that he was a man of sorrows and that no man esteemed him to be worth much at all. In short, the death of Christ and how he died means nothing without the former ...[text shortened]... ds human sacrifice, unless it involves himself. To ignore thiese facts I think is faulty.

However, what of the life of Christ?

Exactly!! We know very little of it. We know about his birth and the last few years before his death, the remaining 90% or so is unknown. I always find it strange when Christians talk of the life of Jesus.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]However, what of the life of Christ?

Exactly!! We know very little of it. We know about his birth and the last few years before his death, the remaining 90% or so is unknown. I always find it strange when Christians talk of the life of Jesus.[/b]

Exactly!! We know very little of it. We know about his birth and the last few years before his death, the remaining 90% or so is unknown. I always find it strange when Christians talk of the life of Jesus.

No. no. What we know about the life of Jesus Christ is adaquate for what Jesus Christ came to accomplish. It is probably the case the what we know about Jesus Christ some people wish they didn't know.

Is it not an excuse to complain that you know nothing about the life of Jesus Christ ?

Are you looking for some unknown bit of information which would nullify what we do know and render it unimportant ? What we know about those thirty three and a half years is certainly adaquate in terms of His agenda. The problem may be that you don't like His agenda and need to know more so as to rationalize counting what you do know as frivolous.


Folks, there are many men and women of God in the Bible. They all led up to that One who was perfect - the Son of God. What details we do not know about Jesus Christ we can pretty much ascertain a general flavor by examining the best aspects of ALL those who went before.

If we know nothing about the young Jesus, you can bet that by examining the young David or the young Solomon, or the young Joseph, or the young Ruth, or the young Daniel. I don't in their weaknesses or sins or failures. But in their godliness all of these figures pointed TO and were precursors OF the Son of God.

What you don't know about Jesus 30 of life you can get a general flavor of by examining the BEST aspects of godly saints of the Bible.

What was Jesus doing for 30 years ??? I'll tell you. He was perfecting a LIFE, a God filled human life. He was perfecting for people a life which He could TRANSMIT to His believers in the form of the life giving Spirit -

"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). He knew that in resurrection He would be transfigured into a life giving Spirit which could be dispensed into man, into millions of men and women, boys and girls. He was perfecting a life that would one day be made available in the form of the pneumatic life giving Spirit. He was perfecting an organic life which could be dispensed and blended into our life so that we might live in union with Him.

The silent part of the life of Jesus was of Him perfecting, perfecting, perfecting that life which God is able to organically join to man's innermost being so that man can live Christ.

grasp this -

"As the living Father has sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me shall live because of Me." (John 6:57)

This is why Jesus refered to Himself as "the bread of life". Bread is prepared. Bread goes through a process of preparation so that it can be consummed. Christ went through a process of incarnation and 30 years of human living, death, resurrection, and ascension and descension as the Spirit, to be consummed as "food" for man.

Right here.

"I am the bread of life. .... This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, that anyone may eat of it and not die.

I am the living bread which came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, given for the life of the world."

Christ life was the preparation of a wonderful baked loaf of heavenly bread. We have to take Him into us by faith. We have to "eat". That means we have to take into our heart His words and Himself as the life giving Spirit.

Originally posted by jaywill

Exactly!! We know very little of it. We know about his birth and the last few years before his death, the remaining 90% or so is unknown. I always find it strange when Christians talk of the life of Jesus.

No. no. What we know about the life of Jesus Christ is [b]adaquate for what Jesus Christ came to accomplish. It is probably th into our heart His words and Himself as the life giving Spirit.[/b]

I didn't get past the first sentence, please don't bother preaching to me.

You know next to nothing of his life. End of debate.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I didn't get past the first sentence, please don't bother preaching to me.

You nothing of his life. End of debate.

What do I care that you do not read it? Maybe someone else will.